M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) ). WE have before us two sets of First Appeals. The first set of First Appeals is a group of 13 First Appeals i. e. First Appeals No. 2129 to 2134 of 1995 (6) and First Appeals No. 2136 of 1995 to 2142 of 1995 (7) filed on behalf of the lands owners - claimants. The other set of First Appeals is a group of 14 First Appeals i. e. First Appeal No. 2618 of 1995 to 2631 of 1995 filed by the Acquiring Body i. e. Gujarat Housing Board. These 13 First Appeals, as above, filed by the land owners i. e. claimants and the 14 First Appeals filed by the Acquiring Body i. e. Gujarat Housing Board, i. e. 27 Appeals in all, are all directed against the common judgment and award dated 29th of October, 1994, passed by the Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in land Acquisition Cases No. 633 of 1988 to 646 of 1988, Land Acquisition Case No. 641 of 1988 being the main case. The land owners claimants as well as the Acquiring Body are aggrieved against this Common judgment and order dated 29th of October, 1994. ( 2 ) THE claimants have filed 13 Appeals being First Appeals No. 2129 of 1995 to 2134 of 1995 and First Appeals No. 2136 of 1994 to 2142 of 1995. It may be mentioned that there is no Appeal before us relating to the Reference Case No. 638 of 1988 and, therefore, there are only 13 First Appeals on behalf of the respondents claimants whereas the Acquiring Body - Gujarat Housing Board has filed 14 Appeals against all the 14 Reference Cases. Whereas all these 27 Appeals (13 by the land owners - claimants and 14 by the Acquiring Body) are directed against the common judgment and order dated 29th of October, 1994 and the same have been heard together and they involve common questions, we propose to decide all these 27 First Appeals by this Common Judgment and order as under. ( 3 ) THE lands of the claimants of village Sanand, District Ahmedabad, were sought to be acquired at the instance of Gujarat Housing Board for the purpose of housing complex for its employees and officers and for that purpose the Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9th September, 1984. ( 3 ) THE lands of the claimants of village Sanand, District Ahmedabad, were sought to be acquired at the instance of Gujarat Housing Board for the purpose of housing complex for its employees and officers and for that purpose the Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9th September, 1984. Thereafter the Notification u/s 6 was issued on 20th October, 1986. The claimants had claimed the compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 200. 00 per Sq. meter. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed the Award on 10th November, 1997 determining the rate of compensation to be Rs. 20. 00 per sq. meter for certain lands and Rs. 22. 00 per sq. meter for certain other lands, which were the subject matter of the acquisition under the same Noitification. The matter was taken to the Reference Court by the claimants and the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per sq. meter i. e. the cases in which the compensation had been determined at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per sq. meter by the Land Acquisition Officer, the payable rate as per the Reference Court is Rs. 70. 00 per sq. meter and the cases in which the Land Acquisition Officer has determined the rate of Rs. 22. 00 per sq. meter, it comes to Rs. 72. 00 per sq. meter. While the claimants had claimed the compensation at the rate of 200. 00 per sq. meter before the Reference Court, before this Court they have pressed their claims for Rs. 100. 00 per sq. meter as against the rate of Rs. 70. 00 and 72. 00 per sq meter as determined by the Reference Court. The Acquiring Body on the other hand has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 29th October, 1994 and has prayed that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 and Rs. 72. 00 per sq. meter is excessive and that the judgment and award passed by the Reference court be set aside. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the claimants one Shri Jilubhai Amarsinh was examined at Exh. 24 and he had deposed that the lands in question are situated in the sim of village Sanand, that Notification u/s 4 was published on 9. 9. meter is excessive and that the judgment and award passed by the Reference court be set aside. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the claimants one Shri Jilubhai Amarsinh was examined at Exh. 24 and he had deposed that the lands in question are situated in the sim of village Sanand, that Notification u/s 4 was published on 9. 9. 1984, the Notification u/s 6 was published on 20th February, 1986 and the Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10th of November, 1987, the possession of the acquired lands was taken on 10th of November, 1987. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at Rs. 20. 00 and 22. 00 per sq. meter and that the same was too meagre and unreasonable, the claimants claimed Rs. 200. 00 per sq. meter for their lands. It was deposed by this witness namely, Jilubhai Amarsinh the claimant in Land Acquisition Case No. 633 of 1987 that the lands of the other claimants are adjoining to each other, and all the lands are similar in nature, level and fertility; that they could take two crops in a year; the crops of Tobacco was taken in the monsoon season. The population of Sanand Town is approximately 25,000, that Sanand is a Taluka Headquarter and that Sanand is a developed township and facilities such as Primary and Secondary Schools, S. T. Bus stand, Telephones, Narmada Project Office, Mamlatdar Office, Sub-Treasury Office, Gujarat Electricity Board and Taluka Panchayat, etc. It has been further deposed that there are industrial developments on both the sides on Viramgam road, wherein factories of Sunmica, Cement, Medicines, PVC Pipes are situated; that there are 4 to 5 Banks, such as, Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, State Bank of India, Dena Bank, etc. ; that there is a pucca road leading from Sanand to Bavla, that village Bavla is at a distance of 15 to 16 Kms from Sanand. ; that there is a pucca road leading from Sanand to Bavla, that village Bavla is at a distance of 15 to 16 Kms from Sanand. That Nal-Sarovar (which is a Bird Sanctuary) is at a distance of 35 Kms from Sanand and Viramgam is 35-37 Kms away from Sanand, that the City of Ahmedabad is at a distance of 17 Kms from Sanand and the acquired lands are at a distance of 300 to 400 meters from Sanand Town and that the acquired lands are surrounded by residential societies, that the Civil Court is situated besides the acquired lands, that their acquired lands gave the crop of Tobacco and beans. These lands are at a level 4 higher. That crops of Tobacco, Juvar and Bajari were taken from these lands and that the land owners could take crop of Tobacco at 28 to 32 mounds per vigha, and the price was Rs. 190. 00 to Rs. 200. 00 per 20 Kgs. and subsequent to it, they were taking leaves at 12 to 15 mounds per vigha, and price was Rs. 90. 00 to Rs. 120. 00 per 20 Kg. He had then deposed that they were taken crops of Juvar or Bajri. The copies of Panipatraks Exh. 25 to 39 showing their ownership and possession of the acquired lands have been tendered in evidence. It has also been stated that the land owners were selling grass of Juvar at Rs. 9. 50 per 20 Kg and they could get 200 to 250 mound per vigha. It had also been deposed that there is a Co-operative Society of Tobacco Growers and Producers and that through this society, they were selling the crop of Tobacco to Anand National Cooperative Tobacco Growers Federation. A copy of bill for sale was produced at Exh. 40. Exhibits 41 to 49 receipts given by the purchasers have also been tendered in evidence. The extract of sale has been produced at Exh. 50. The certified copies of Index issued by Sub-Registrar, for sale instances were produced at Exh. 51 to 54. The certified copy of the Resolution dated 10th August 1984 passed by Ahmedabad District Collector giving permission for the construction of shopping centre to Sanand Nagar Panchayat has been produced at Exh. 55. Against this demand of Sanand Nagar Panchayat, the Collector has fixed Rs. 150. 00 per sq. 51 to 54. The certified copy of the Resolution dated 10th August 1984 passed by Ahmedabad District Collector giving permission for the construction of shopping centre to Sanand Nagar Panchayat has been produced at Exh. 55. Against this demand of Sanand Nagar Panchayat, the Collector has fixed Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter and that there is 1 km distance between the said lands and the lands which have been acquired. That the shopping centre is at a distance of 15 to 20 meter from the village. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that it is not true that their lands are waste lands or non-developed lands. It has been stated that he was getting Rs. 70,000. 00 as agricultural income, Rs. 40,000. 00 to Rs. 50,000. 00 from the crops of Tobacco, Rs. 20,000. 00 to Rs. 25,000. 00 from the crop of Juvar and Rs. 5,000. 00 to Rs. 10,000. 00 from his carting contract, and thus, in all the income was Rs. 70,000. 00 to Rs. 80,000. 00. He admitted that he did not keep accounts of his income or expenses, that he was taking two crops a year and had denied that the acquired lands had no facility of water. He admitted that there is no bore or well in the acquired lands but the lands were provided with water from the bore of Kantibhai Naranbhai. It has been denied that Sanand Court is at a distance of 0. 75 Kms from the acquired lands, and that S. T. Stand at a distance of 1 and 1/2 Kms. It was also denied that there was no development at the time of the acquisition of the lands. It has been denied that the acquired lands were not within the limits of Sanand Nagarpalika. While stating that at the time of the acquisition of the lands, the societies were in existence, he had stated that it was not true that the prices of the lands were lower than the rates as have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has been stated that the price of lands were of Rs. 100. 00 to Rs. 125. 00 per sq. meter at the relevant time but he has no documentary evidence in support of it. It has been denied that the price of these lands were not more than Rs. 20. 00 to Rs. 22. 00 per sq. meter. It has been stated that the price of lands were of Rs. 100. 00 to Rs. 125. 00 per sq. meter at the relevant time but he has no documentary evidence in support of it. It has been denied that the price of these lands were not more than Rs. 20. 00 to Rs. 22. 00 per sq. meter. This witness has stated that he had no knowledge about new tenure lands and that it was not true that there was drought condition in the years 1984 to 1987. It has also been denied that the price of the lands was Rs. 45,000. 00per vigha at the time of the acquisition of the lands. ( 5 ) ONE Shri Jashwantbhai Amrutlal Patel was also examined on behalf of the claimants at Exh. 34. He is a claimant of lands bearing Survey Nos. 1673 and 1676/1 under acquisition and was serving as Talati in Sanand since last four years. This witness had also corroborated the statement made by Jilubhai Amarsinh at Exh. 24. ( 6 ) THE opponents examined one Shri Thakerbhai Manubhai Desai at Exh. 94, who had deposed that he is an Executive Engineer in Gujarat Housing Board, that in the year 1989 there was no development surrounding it and that the development was towards Sanand side. He had produced a certificate issued by the Talati at Exh. 95. He had stated that the approach road is on the Neliya and that for joining the acquired lands with Sanand-Nal Sarovar, they are required to acquire other lands and such lands are under acquisition, which is 385 sq. meter of Survey No. 2188/p and were acquired at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter. The owner of the said land was consulted in December, 1991 who had written a letter to the Board, which has been produced at Exh. 96, and against this letter, Board had passed a Resolution at Exh. 97. The owners of the lands Survey Nos. 1682/1 and 1682/2 situated besides the acquired lands, have written a letter to the Board offering them to purchase at the rate fixed for the acquired lands. This letter has been produced at Exh. 98. Against this proposal, the Board has passed the Resolution, which has been produced at Exh. 99. The owners of S. Nos. 1682/1 and 1682/2 had represented again, in which they claimed Rs. 50. This letter has been produced at Exh. 98. Against this proposal, the Board has passed the Resolution, which has been produced at Exh. 99. The owners of S. Nos. 1682/1 and 1682/2 had represented again, in which they claimed Rs. 50. 00 instead of Rs. 35. 00 to Rs. 40. 00 This letter was produced at Exh. 100. Considering the demand in Exh. 100, the Board has passed a Resolution Exh. 101. A map of sale instances of the acquired lands had been produced at Exh. 102 and it has been stated that the land of the sale instances produced by the claimants are on northern side of Ahmedabad Sanand Highway. This witness had stated that there was no development surrounding the acquired lands and that the acquired lands are out of limits of Sanand Nagarpanchayat, that at present Rs. 50. 00 is the price of the lands situated surrounding the acquired lands. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that there are acquired lands which are likely to be developed or may be used for residential zone. This witness had stated that he does not remember that after his arrival, any procedure for De-notifying these lands was initiated, that any amount had been spent for levelling the lands because there is only one scheme. The construction of 50 L. I. G. houses have been continued and no other construction had been made. This witness had also stated that it was not true that for the purpose of approach road, the lands were not to be acquired. It has been denied that between S. N. 2128 and the acquired lands, there is one Parab and Visamo, where two highways are touching. It has been denied that the claimants were taking crops of Tobacco, Raydo, Vegetables, Juva, etc. It had been stated that the Court is on Nalsarvoar Road and besides it, there is Sanand Kharid-Vechan Sangh and that there is one High School and surrounding it there were societies. This witness had denied that the acquired lands have come within the jurisdiction of Sanand Nagarpanchayat while it has been admitted that the lands of Survey No. 1617 is within residential area of AUDA. It has been denied that the plans have been approved by the Nagar Panchayat and it has been admitted that they have given a certificate stating that the acquired lands are suitable for residential purpose. It has been denied that the plans have been approved by the Nagar Panchayat and it has been admitted that they have given a certificate stating that the acquired lands are suitable for residential purpose. That the costs and interest of the acquired lands were being charged while allotting plots and it has been further stated that there are wells made by them where the construction is under progress in the acquired lands. He had denied the knowledge about the cancellation of any document which have been produced by the claimants. He has stated that at the time of writing Exh. 21, he was not in-charge of this file but he has admitted that big industries are established within 2 and half to 3 kms from Sanand; that the acquired lands are 1 km. away from the by-pass road from Ahmedabad to Nalsarovar; that ST Bus Stand is 1. 1/4 km. away from these lands, and that he has no idea about distance of Sanand-Bavla Road. That ST Bus Stand is within the village and he had no idea about distance from S. T. Bus Stand to Railway Station. It has been stated that there is a market surrounding S. T. Bus Stand. ( 7 ) DOCUMENTARY evidence in support of their case has been produced and the Village Form No. 7/12 are produced at Exh. 25 to 39. On behalf of the claimants, the extracts of sale instances with list Exh. 17, at Exh. 51 to 54 have been produced and Exh. 55 copy of the Resolution passed by the Collector fixing the price at the rate of Rs. 150. 00 for the lands stated therein has been produced and on behalf of the claimants sales particulars with list Exh. 20 has been produced wherein Exhibits 41 to 49 are the bills issued by Manpasand Way Bridge. Exh. 62 is also documentary evidence, which bears Exh. 128 to 153 and Exh. 128 has been produced to show that it is a certificate issued by Sanand Nagar Panchayat dated 15th February, 1990, certifying that Survey Nos. 1670 to 1678 and other surrounding lands are within the purview of revenue limits of Sanand Nagar Panchayat. The Village Form No. 7/12 are produced at Exh. 129 and 131 to 154 while Exh. 130 is the sale instance of S. No. 2140 admeasuring 150 sq. meters which was sold at Rs. 14,520. 1670 to 1678 and other surrounding lands are within the purview of revenue limits of Sanand Nagar Panchayat. The Village Form No. 7/12 are produced at Exh. 129 and 131 to 154 while Exh. 130 is the sale instance of S. No. 2140 admeasuring 150 sq. meters which was sold at Rs. 14,520. 00 i. e. Rs. 96. 00 per sq. meter on 25. 10. 1983. List Exh. 80 has been produced wherein Exh. 120 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 37 of 1989 by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad. The judgment at Exh. 120 was passed on 30. 11. 1991 and in this judgment at Exh. 120, the Notification under Section-4 was published on 20. 5. 1981 but in the present case the Notification under Section 4 has been published on 9th September, 1984 and the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer was passed on 23. 9. 1986 awarding compensation at Rs. 3. 00 to Rs. 5. 00 per sq. meter and as against this Award, the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 45. 00 per sq. meter in reference cases filed by the claimants. The opponents of that case had filed First Appeal No. 1575 of 1992 before the High Court of Gujarat but this Appeal was summarily dismissed on 19th August, 1992. The certified copy of the judgment has been produced at Exh. 121. He has also produced the deposition of one claimant Kantilal Ambalal Patel in Land Acquisition Case No. 37 of 1989 at Exh. 122 and the copies of the Index in respect of the sale instances have been produced at Exh. 123 to 127. The acquiring body has also produced the documentary evidence with list at Exh. 91. A letter dated 31st December, 1990 from Maneklal Prahladbhai Patel to the Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad, in respect of acquisition of Survey Nos. 1782/1 and 1682/2 of Sanand has been produced at Exh. 98. A copy of the Resolution No. 377/91 of the Gujarat Housing Board in respect of reconsideration of the acquisition of the land has been produced at Exh. 99. The land of Maneklal Prahladji Patel was decided to take at Rs. 35. 00 per sq. meter by consent award under the Land Acquisition Act. 98. A copy of the Resolution No. 377/91 of the Gujarat Housing Board in respect of reconsideration of the acquisition of the land has been produced at Exh. 99. The land of Maneklal Prahladji Patel was decided to take at Rs. 35. 00 per sq. meter by consent award under the Land Acquisition Act. A letter dated 1st March, 1993 from Maneklal Prahladbhai Patel to the Chairman, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad and the Housing Commissioner, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad was produced at Exh. 100, wherein it was stated by Mr. Maneklal that he has offered his land at Rs. 50. 00 per sq. meter and his offer was just and reasonable. A copy of the Resolution No. 407/93 of the Gujarat Housing Board in respect of the acquisition of S. Nos. 1682/1 and 2, fixing price at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per sq. meter was produced at Exh. 101. A consent letter dated 18. 22. 1991 written by Patel Somabhai Naranbhai to the Housing Commissioner, Ahmedabad, asking price at Rs. 60. 00 per Sq. meter for their lands was produced at Exh. 96 and in reply to this letter, Resolution No. 368 of 1991 was passed by the Gujarat Housing Board, a copy of which has been produced at Exh. 97. A map of the acquired lands and also surrounding lands has been produced at Exh. 102 and Index of sale instances at Exh. 95. Date:27. 2. 2001 ( 8 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence as above, relying upon the document at Exh. 55 i. e. order passed by the Collector fixing the price of the lands situated at a short distance away from the lands under acquisition in this case has been relied upon on behalf of the claimants by Mr. A. J. Patel and it has been submitted that even if the argument advanced on behalf of the Acquiring Body is accepted on its face value and 40% deduction is allowed, the market price would work out to Rs. 90. 00 per sq. meter. As per Collectors order (page 9 of the paper book) the Deputy Town Planner has assessed the market value of the land as on 1. 8. 1983 at Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter and that was a provisional assessment which was subject matter of upward revision. 90. 00 per sq. meter. As per Collectors order (page 9 of the paper book) the Deputy Town Planner has assessed the market value of the land as on 1. 8. 1983 at Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter and that was a provisional assessment which was subject matter of upward revision. In this case where the Deputy Town Planner has assessed the market value at Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter, the land was situated within the town limits and the lands under acquisition is situated at a short distance of 0. 75 kms from the limits of the town. The Civil Court premises are existing on the land bearing Survey No. 1627. This is proved by the extracts of village form Nos. 7 and 12 of Survey No. 1627 which are on the record of the case. Witness Jilubhai Amarsinh, Exh. 24 has deposed in his evidence that the Civil Court exists on the land bearing Survey No. 1627 and the Civil Court came into existence some time in 1982. Witness Jashwantbhai Amrutlal Patel has been examined at Exh. 84. He had also deposed about the existence of the Civil Court and housing societies in the adjoining lands. Exhibits 132 to 154 are extracts from Record of rights which show the existence of housing societies on the lands concerned. Both the witnesses Jilubhai and Jashwantbhai have stated about the existence of the societies in the adjoining lands in 1984 and these documents are produced with list Exh. 62 and are duly proved and all the said documents prove the existence of the societies in the adjoining lands. According to Mr. A. J. Patel, in cross-examination also the testimony of these witnesses could not be damaged. Exh. 132 speaks about existence of Nilam Cooperative Housing Society and it appears from the said document that the said society had applied for permission to convert the land into non-agricultural use way back in 1971. In the map at Exh. 88 produced on the record of the case, these survey numbers are shown to be contiguous to the lands under acquisition in the present case. In the map at Exh. 88 produced on the record of the case, these survey numbers are shown to be contiguous to the lands under acquisition in the present case. The map also shows that the acquired lands are situated on the western side while the town of Sanand is situated on the other side of the lands and the limits - boundaries of both touch each other, meaning thereby that there is no significant distance between the two sets of lands. The lands being in close proximity of the town of Sanand and these lands were also included within the municipal limits of Sanand in 1984 immediately after they were acquired. Mr. Patel has submitted that the case of the claimants is supported by the deposition of witness Thakorebhai Desai at Exh. 94, who was examined by the acquiring body Gujarat Housing Board. In his cross-examination this witness had stated that the lands in question were very much needed by the Housing Board and these lands had building potentiality. The Acquiring Body cannot get away from this admission made by its own witness. This witness had also admitted that the Civil Court is situated on Nal Sarovar road and the lands in question are situated on the eastern side and are very close to the Civil Court premises. This is also evident from the map at Exh. 88. ( 9 ) AS against this, Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel for the Acquiring Body has placed a strong reliance on the offer made by one Maneklal at Exh. 98. The lands of Maneklal Patel was acquired by the Housing Board at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter. This offer was made in the year 1990. This letter dated 31st December, 1990 - Exh. 98 was written by said Maneklal Patel to the Chairman of the Gujarat Housing Board. It was also argued that the Housing Board had incurred huge expenses for the development of the lands under acquisition and, therefore, proper deductions are required to be made on account of development charges. It was also contended that the statutory deductions of the States share to the extent of 5% of the amount of compensation have been rightly directed in case of new tenure lands in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the Gujarat State Amendment Act in the Land Acquisition Act (Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 dated 16. 8. It was also contended that the statutory deductions of the States share to the extent of 5% of the amount of compensation have been rightly directed in case of new tenure lands in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11-A of the Gujarat State Amendment Act in the Land Acquisition Act (Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 dated 16. 8. 1965 ). ( 10 ) WE may discuss the cases cited before us as under : - (I) The decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 515 of 2001 to 523 of 2001 (Arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 5716 - 5724 of 2000 Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another. In the case before the Supreme Court the Notification u/s 4 had been issued on 5th of August, 1991. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per sq. meter against the claim of Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter. While the neighbouring villages in that area are directly connected with Viramgam town for business, education, industries, etc. and there are ginning, pressing factories, nationalised banks, godowns of Food Corporation, Offices of Indian Oil Corporation etc. and that the area has potentiality for further development. The claimants aggrieved by the said fixation, took the matter for Reference u/s 18 of the Act and it was submitted that the lands sought to be acquired are situated within 2 kms. from the town of Viramgam which is adjoining to the railway line in the North and both the lands under acquisition and the land under Exh. 16 are situated at an equal distance from the said Viramgam town. In case of the acquisition of land under Exh. 16 the date of Notification u/s. 4 was 3rd January, 1991 whereas the date of notification u/s. 4 in the case under consideration was of August, 1991. The State preferred Appeal before the High Court and High court reduced the rate of compensation by Rs. 10/per sq. meter and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48. 00 per sq. meter and the claimants preferred the SLP before the Supreme Court while the State preferred Appeals for further reduction. The State preferred Appeal before the High Court and High court reduced the rate of compensation by Rs. 10/per sq. meter and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48. 00 per sq. meter and the claimants preferred the SLP before the Supreme Court while the State preferred Appeals for further reduction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction had been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition was of large area, and the second, the distance between the lands in question and the land under acquisition in Exh. 16 was about 5 kms. The Supreme Court observed that the largeness is when each land holders land is clubbed together and then the area becomes large. Each land owners holdings are of small area. Even other wise visioning in the line with the submission for the state, it was found that Exh. 16 was about two hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. So far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimants unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. The distances between the land under Exh. 16 and the land in question even if they are 5kms apart would not be relevant, the relevancy could be, their distances from Viramgam town and the Supreme Court found as per map produced by the State that the present acquired land is about 3 Kms away from it while the land under Exh. 16 is about 2 kms. away from it. The Supreme Court found that the difference was not such so as to lead to reduce the rate of compensation specially on the facts of the case. The Supreme Court also found that the quality including potentiality of the land between Exh. 16 and the case in question was similar and no evidence had been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In this view of the matter, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10. 00 per sq. meter was not be sustained. 16 and the case in question was similar and no evidence had been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In this view of the matter, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10. 00 per sq. meter was not be sustained. On that basis the order of the High Court to the extent it reduced the compensation rate by Rs. 10/- per sq. meter was set aside and the finding recorded by the Reference Court was upheld. (II) In the case of HANSANALI KHANBHAI and SONS vs. STATE OF GUJART, reported in 1996 (1) GLR 91, the Supreme Court held that the Court has to occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious purchaser and determine the valuation. The Supreme Court observed that the Court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. The Court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After the evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the Court must answer as to what would be just and fair market value. (III) In the case of SPECIAL DEPTUY COLLECTOR vs. KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2625 , it has been held that what is fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. (III) In the case of SPECIAL DEPTUY COLLECTOR vs. KURRA SAMBASIVA RAO, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2625 , it has been held that what is fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. (IV) In the case of MAHABIR PRASAD SANTUKA vs. COLLECTOR, reported in AIR 1987 SC 720 , it has been held that offer to industrial entrepreneurs at concessional rate is not a market value. It has been held that Section 23 of the Act lays down principles for determining compensation accordingly to which the owner is entitled to receive market value of the land. Market value means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land. Market value means, the price which a purchaser is willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller. (V) In the case of MEHTA RAVINDRARAI AJITRAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 31 (1) GLR 372, the Supreme Court held that the price fetched at a distress sale does not supply a good standard. Market value means, the price which a purchaser is willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller. (V) In the case of MEHTA RAVINDRARAI AJITRAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in 31 (1) GLR 372, the Supreme Court held that the price fetched at a distress sale does not supply a good standard. The market value of a piece of property for purposes of Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing purchaser but not too anxious buyer, dealing at arms length. Price fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidence of market value. (VI) In the case of UDAYAN GIRIJAPRASAD vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AHMEDABAD, reported in 1976 (17) GLR 668, our own High Court has laid down the principles for the purpose of determination of compensation under Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and it has been held that the market price is that price which a normal and prudent buyer wants to pay after evaluating the prices prevailing in the round about area and which a normal and a prudent seller is willing to accept. It is therefore the consensus between the buyer and the seller which would decide the price at which a particular property is bought or sold. (VII) In the case of STATE OF J. and K. vs. MOHAMMAD MATEEN WANI, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2470 , it has been held that for the purpose of determining the compensation under Sec. 23 of the Act, a big chunk of lands acquired, the sale instances for the small parcel of lands cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. (VIII) In the case of SMT. SARASWATI DEVI vs. U. P. GOVERNMENT, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1620 , it has been held that the value has to be determined according to use to which the land was put on date of notification under Sec. 4. (IX) In the case of FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE SPL. (VIII) In the case of SMT. SARASWATI DEVI vs. U. P. GOVERNMENT, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1620 , it has been held that the value has to be determined according to use to which the land was put on date of notification under Sec. 4. (IX) In the case of FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KAIRA, reported in in 1971 (12) GLR 319, it has been held that the instances of sale of small areas can be taken into consideration after making suitable deductions and no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the quantum of deduction. It would not be proper to adopt a dogmatic or doctrinaire approach in the matter and while evaluating a large plot of land by reference to the sale instance of a small plot of land, several factors must enter into account and no definite rule can be laid down as to the exact extent of deduction to be made. (X) In the case of STATE OF GUJARAT vs. DEVJI BECHAR, reported in 1991 (2) GLR 736 , it has been held that it was a well recognized principle of evaluation of lands not to value large areas of land on the basis of sales of small areas without making suitable deductions from sale price of small plots of land on account of largeness of the size of the land sought to be evaluated with reference to the small plots. But, neither the valuer nor the Court would be justified in rejecting the sale instance of a small plot as one that is not a comparable sale instance only on the ground of difference in size. In the case of Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was held that it would not be proper to adopt a dogmatic or doctrinaire approach in the matter and while evaluating a large plot of land by reference to sale instance of small plot of land several factors must enter into account and no definite rule can be laid down as to the extent of deduction to be made. (XI) In the case of ADMINISTRATOR GENL. OF WEST BENGAL vs. COLLECTOR, VARANA@si, reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 , it has been held that the prices fetched for lands similar to acquired land with similar advantages and potentialities at or about time of preliminary notification constitute best evidence. (XI) In the case of ADMINISTRATOR GENL. OF WEST BENGAL vs. COLLECTOR, VARANA@si, reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 , it has been held that the prices fetched for lands similar to acquired land with similar advantages and potentialities at or about time of preliminary notification constitute best evidence. The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land with potentialities for urban use has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extent of lands. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes, that building lots that could be laid-out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid-out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines. While referring to the case of Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha vs. Amristar Improvement Trust, reported in AIR 1982 SC 940 , the Supreme Court had indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53%. But this principle could be applied only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. ( 11 ) KEEPING in view the evidence oral and documentary as discussed in para 4 to 6 and 7 in the earlier part of this judgment, we may point out that it is not in dispute that the Collector had passed the order Exh. 55 for fixing the price of the lands situated at a short distance of 0. 75 km. from the lands under acquisition and the Dy. Town Planner had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter in case of lands situated in town limits. 55 for fixing the price of the lands situated at a short distance of 0. 75 km. from the lands under acquisition and the Dy. Town Planner had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 150. 00 per sq. meter in case of lands situated in town limits. Therefore, even if we accept the argument of Mrs. Mehta, learned counsel for Acquiring Body, to make 40% deduction against development and difference of level, the price comes down to Rs. 90. 00 per sq. meter, whereas the Reference Court has determined the rate of Rs. 72. 50 per sq. meter, and this deduction from Rs. 90. 00 per sq. meter to Rs. 72. 50 per sq. meter, in our opinion, is sufficient to take care of the lands in question being 0. 75km. away from township. In face of this position we find that merely because of the offer made by Shri Maneklal at Exh. 98 in the year 1990 on 31. 12. 1990 for a sum of Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter to the Housing Board, the market value of the land in question cannot be assessed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety and the prevailing market conditions as per the Dy. Town Planner himself. ( 12 ) WHILE applying the principle as aforesaid to the facts of the present case, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 72. 50ps is just and reasonable and whereas the lands in question were close to the township and had the potentiality of development for the reasons as stated in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference by this court. 72. 50ps is just and reasonable and whereas the lands in question were close to the township and had the potentiality of development for the reasons as stated in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference by this court. We do not find any force in the contentions of the claimants either for further enhancement of the rate of compensation or for any deduction in the same as sought by the Acquiring Body and therefore we find that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error either of fact or of law in appreciation of the evidence and the conclusions have been rightly arrived at in accordance with the well settled norms as laid down in the various cases discussed as above and after due and active application of mind to the material and evidence as was available before the Reference Court. ( 13 ) AN attempt was also made on behalf of the claimants that the direction which has been given with regard to the fixing of 5% government share for the new tenure lands was illegal and is required to be set aside. The reliance in this regard was placed by Mr. A. J. Patel on the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. BABU GOVID GAVATE, reported in AIR 1996 SC 904 . It was argued by Mrs. Mehta on behalf of the Acquiring Body and Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned A. G. P. that this judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in a case under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and it was held by the Supreme Court that Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act had no application to compulsory acquisition of land. It is argued by Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned AGP that so far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the State Amendment has been made under Section 11-A of Gujarat State Amendment Act in he Land Acquisition Act (Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 dated 16. 8. 1965 ). It is argued by Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned AGP that so far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the State Amendment has been made under Section 11-A of Gujarat State Amendment Act in he Land Acquisition Act (Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 dated 16. 8. 1965 ). Section 11-A is reproduced hereunder :"11-A. Sums payable to Government to be specified in award.- If the land in respect of which an award is made under Sec. 11 is land which according to the terms of its tenure is not transferable or partible by meters and bounds without the sanction of the State Government or any other competent officer, then out of the amount of compensation awarded therefor a sum, which would have been payable to the State Government under any law for the time being in force, had the land been otherwise transferred, shall be payable to the State Government and the Collector shall specify in the Award the sum so payable to the State Government. "it goes without saying that if there is any land which is a new tenure land, the 5% deduction of government share shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 11-A of Gujarat State Amendment Act. The provisions of this State Amendment read with " Seventhly in the case of any land which according to the terms of the tenure on which it is held is not transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the sanction of the State Government or any competent officer the market value of similar land held without such restriction" or Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act would show that once the compensation is determined in accordance with the entries regarding if under Sec. 23, the sums payable to the Government are to be specified in the Award as required under Section 11-A of the Gujarat State Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act. We find that such an amendment in the Maharashtra Act was not there before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Babu Govind Gavate (supra ). Had such provision been there in the Maharashtra Act, it could be a different matter altogether, but the sums payable to the Government has to be specified in the Award in terms of Section 11-A and to define such sums, the Circular dated 17. 4. Had such provision been there in the Maharashtra Act, it could be a different matter altogether, but the sums payable to the Government has to be specified in the Award in terms of Section 11-A and to define such sums, the Circular dated 17. 4. 1978 (LAQ-1077/5557-LA-IV) was issued and, therefore, the 5% government share has to be deducted. Section 23 deals with the consideration for determining the compensation whereas Section 11-A of State Amendment deals with the sums payable to the Government to be specified in the Award and, therefore, the direction in the Award for 5% Government share to be deducted for the new tenure lands is in conformity with the provision of Section 11-A read with the State Governments Circular dated 17th April, 1978 and this direction also does not warrant any interference. We may observe that this question was argued by Mr. A. J. Patel and thereafter it was also said that he does not press this point challenging that part of the Award whereby 5% sum was directed to be deducted as government share. Whereas we have heard the parties on this aspect of the matter at length and whereas this question is being raised every now and then in different matters, we thought it proper to decide this controversy once for all and we accordingly hold that the 5% government share is lawful deduction in case of new tenure lands out of the compensation determined under Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Court. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Patel then drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of DY. GENERAL MANAGER, O. N. G. C. vs. CHATURJI LALAJI and ORS. reported in 1998 (1) GLR 130 which is oblivious of Sec. 11a of the Gujarat State Amendment Act according to the learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Umesh Trivedi. We may observe that in this case the attention of the Division Bench was not invited to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Gujarat State Amendment Act in the Land Acquisition Act, the Court proceeded to decide this question on the basis of the case under Maharashtra Act decided by the Supreme Court i. e. AIR 1996 SC 904 (supra) in which there was no provision like that of Gujarat State Amendment Act vide Sec. 11a. Therefore on this aspect of the matter, we find that this judgment 1998 (1) GLR 130 (supra) cannot be cited as an authority. ( 15 ) ALL these 27 Appeals i. e. 13 Appeals preferred by the Claimants and 14 Appeals preferred by the Acquiring Body, fail and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. It is expected that the Appellant - Acquiring Body shall pay the due compensation to the claimants in all these matters within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is served upon them by either of the parties. .